The proliferation of wireless devices has created a widely recognized distraction problem for all types of transport operators. Transport operators are responsible for the safe operation of their transport, such as cars, trucks, buses, trains, motorcycles, boats, aircraft, etc. For convenience and readability, all transport entities will be referred to as ‘vehicles” herein. The ‘cellphone distraction’ has proven to seriously impair users' ability to safely operate their vehicles. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), as reported in their Jul. 16, 2005 ‘Status Report’, operator distractions are proven to increase accident rates by over 400%, and according to their September, 2010 Traffic Safety Facts ‘Research Note’, the number one source of operator distraction is cellphone use/texting. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) September 2009 Traffic Safety Facts Research Note entitled, ‘An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases’, in 2008 operator distraction was determined to be the primary cause of auto accidents resulting in over 5,870 deaths and 515,000 injuries. At over $120B annually, these fatality/injury accidents represent the highest per incident liability claims cost for auto insurers.
The use of wireless devices such as phones, data cards, tablet PCs, and netbooks has exploded over the past several years. In the United States, these devices commonly utilize wireless air interface technologies such as CDMA, GSM, WCDMA/HSPA, LTE, Bluetooth, WiFi and WiMax. As the size of wireless devices shrink and their functionality increases, they lure more and more individuals into using them to talk, message, watch videos, and play games while operating a vehicle. Although tempting, the use of these devices and applications while operating a vehicle has proven highly distracting and in many cases, injurious or lethal. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) website, “Driver inattention is a leading factor in many crashes, and cellphone use and texting are some of the most common driver distractions. While more and more states and localities are banning specific distractions, GHSA's message to all drivers is: don't use cellphones or other electronic devices while driving, regardless of the current law.”
A September 2009 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Truck and Bus Safety entitled, ‘Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations’, discovered that drivers of heavy vehicles and trucks were 5.9 times more likely to crash or nearly-crash when dialing their cellphones. These same drivers were over 23.2 times more likely to crash or nearly-crash when text messaging while driving.
Most states, and many municipalities, have already enacted laws to help curb vehicle operator distractions caused by wireless devices. Many states recognized the most dangerous combinations of wireless device use by inexperienced drivers, or by distracted drivers within a school zone, and have enacted restrictions accordingly. Several states now prohibit hand-held cellphone use altogether while driving, and a majority of states now ban text messaging while driving. Unfortunately, these laws have proven difficult to enforce, and drivers have demonstrated minimal compliance. As a result, the IIHS reported in the Sep. 28, 2010 issue of their ‘Status Report’, that these bans have had no overall effect on accident rates.
Hands-free adapters have proven ineffective at mitigating the distraction a vehicle operator experiences while using a wireless device. Recent research by the NHTSA, as reported in their July, 2003 report, Using Wireless Communication Devices While Driving, demonstrates no difference in the level of driver distraction between hands-free operation of a cellphone and hand-held operation of a cellphone.
Automobile and truck drivers are not the only vehicle operators subject to the grave results of wireless device distraction. On Sep. 12, 2008, a Union Pacific freight train and a Metrolink commuter train collided head-on in the Chatsworth district of Los Angeles, Calif., resulting in 25 deaths and 135 injuries. The NTSB faulted the engineer of the Metrolink for the collision, concluding that he was distracted with sending text messages while operating the locomotive. In May of 2008, and again in May of 2009, collisions occurred on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority streetcar system. Both collisions resulted from distracted operators using their cellphones. These two accidents resulted in serious passenger injuries and one death.
The dangers and costs associated with unsafe wireless device use by the operator of a vehicle are well researched and documented. Several solutions exist to address this problem. Their effectiveness however has been severely limited by major shortcomings. Currently existing solutions may be classified into three categories: 1) in-vehicle wireless device jammers; 2) wireless device software applications and 3) combination in-vehicle device and wireless device software applications.
One solution to the unsafe wireless device use by the operator of a vehicle problem is the use of a highly discrete short-range wireless device jammer. These devices exist with varying degrees of sophistication, for example the Angel MP and Txtstopper devices, but all operate through the transmission of radio frequencies intended to either cancel or drown-out valid radio transmissions. Unfortunately, this active aspect of all jamming solutions entails undesirable side effects. Jamming may interfere with other wireless devices, such as those in adjacent areas. Additionally, jamming devices may “leak”, interfering with frequencies outside the range of targeted wireless devices. This can adversely impact a broad range of radio frequency (RF) devices ranging from garage door openers to medical equipment. As a result, the FCC banned all forms of jamming in the 1934 Telecommunications Act (SEC. 333. [47 U.C.S. 333]), including battery operated and mobile wireless devices. This Act states that “No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government”. This Act also bans the manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions. In summary, this entire genre of solutions is currently illegal in the US, as well as most other countries.
The wireless device software applications solution category requires the installation and use of a software application on the targeted wireless device. Consequently, it only works for those wireless devices on which it is installed. For example, these applications deactivate certain capabilities of the installed phone when the phone is identified as moving beyond a specific speed. The method for determining device speed varies, but usually utilizes the phone's GPS interface, wireless network triangulation, or other analysis of the device's RF signal characteristics. These products, for example the ZoomSafer, iZUP and Textecution software, have several serious shortcomings. First, each vendor's software supports only a relatively small number of wireless devices. Second, since the software resides on the wireless device, it can be disabled or overcome by the user. Third, these products only recognize device speed, not whether it is being used by the operator of a vehicle. Thus, it will disable the wireless device in circumstances when it is unnecessary, such as when the user is riding on a bus, or as a passenger in the vehicle. Additionally, these products can impair safety. Some allow the user to disable the application's blocking by entering a specific code. Others simply will not allow use of the wireless device until it has come to a stop. The first approach creates additional distraction to an errant user who attempts to disable blocking while operating a vehicle. The latter can prevent legitimate use of the device in an emergency situation. Finally, these products do nothing to prevent an operator from unsafely using another wireless device on which the application software is not installed.
The combination in-vehicle device and wireless device application solutions, for example CellControl, largely resemble the software-only applications, but with two improvements. The first improvement utilizes an in-vehicle device that enables the software application to confirm the wireless device's location within a specific vehicle. This eliminates the unwarranted blocking concerns suffered by the software-only solutions. The second improvement of this solution is that vehicle speed is acquired from the vehicle's monitoring systems, as opposed to relying on the wireless device or wireless network. Although these solutions offer improvements over the software-only version, they still suffer from the fatal flaws of the software-only versions. More specifically, these solutions only work on those devices on which they are installed, have a limited population of supported wireless devices, may be overcome or disabled by user, may impair safety due to errant work-around usage or the blocking of non-911 emergency calls, and offer no protection against the unsafe use of unequipped wireless devices.
Any solution that blocks or disables a wireless device functionally, or otherwise requires software on that device, is either ineffective, unsafe, or illegal. What is needed is an ability to detect, identify, report, and discourage unsafe wireless device use by the operator of a vehicle through a passive monitoring solution that is legal, safe, and effective.